T.H. Breen, "Equality in the British Empire: James Otis's Radical Critique of John Locke," Forthcoming
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising T. H. Breen Inspiration for this essay came from an influential article that Edmund S. Morgan published more than forty years ago. "The American Revolution: Revisions in Need of Revising" might best be classified as a "think piece," reflections on the current state of eighteenth-century Anglo-American historiography.' Morgan's observa- tions-like those advanced here-were meant to have a speculative quality, the goal being to provoke constructive debate about major interpretive issues. In that spirit he readdressed familiar questions and challenged dominant orthodoxies, suggest- ing how people writing about colonial society on the eve of national independence might push the field in productive new directions. In his review of the current literature, Morgan posited, among other things, that colonial American scholars had lost touch with a rapidly changing English histori- ography. Their basic assumptions about the character of the British Empire in the mid-eighteenth century relied on scholarship that had been completed more than a generation earlier. But during the postwar years bold new studies had appeared. According to Morgan, Sir Lewis Namier, then England's most distinguished polit- ical historian, had almost single-handedly transformed the interpretive landscape. Namier's iconoclastic writings depicted an empire governed by narrow-minded, complacent country gentlemen who defined politics almost solely as a scramble for patronage." Morgan noted that if Namier and his followers had correctly described the mentality of the English ruling class, then historians of late colonial America might as well take up more rewarding research topics on this side of the Atlantic T. H. Breen is William Smith Mason Professor of American History at Northwestern University. An earlier version of this essay was delivered at the Krefeld Historical Symposia in Krefeld, Germany (April 1996). The author wishes to thank three participants in that conference for their thoughtful comments: Hartrnut Lehmann, Hermann Wellenreuther, and James Hutson. The author also received valuable suggestions for revision from James Oakes, Robert Wiebe, Jacob Lassner,]. G. A. Pocock, Lawrence Stone, Jack P. Greene, Jim Smyth, and John Murrin. 1 Edmund S. Morgan, "The American Revolution: Revisions in Need of Revising," Wziliam and Mary Quar- terly, 14 (Jan. 1957), 3-15. 2 Lewis B. Namier, England in the Age 0/ the Amen'can Revolution (london, 1961); Lewis B. Narnier, The Structure a/Politics at the Accession a/George III (london, 1957); LewisB. Namier, Monarchy and the PartySys- tem (Oxford, 1952). The Journal of American History June 1997 13 14 TheJournal of American History June 1997 Ocean. Morgan counseled them to concentrate on the experiences of ordinary Americans, on local politics and colonial institutions, on matters closer to home, instead of reconstructing a political world of scheming courtiers and bureaucrats. Although he praised the work of Charles Mclean Andrews and the members of the "imperial" school, Morgan effectively shifted the focus of research from the metropolitan center to the colonial periphery, from a broad history of the British Empire to the social history of the American provinces.3 Morgan's revisions now stand in need of revising. What happened,"of course, was that over the last four decades historians of eighteenth-century England re- worked the entire field, and the men and women who followed in Namier's wake remapped British politics and culture. It is their work, an impressive list of pub- lications associated with people such as Linda Colley and John Brewer, that invites colonial historians to rethink commonplace assumptions about the imperial con- nection and its impact on early American society.! If Narnier's writings soured American historians on the society that produced George III and Lord Bute, the newer literature has had just the opposite effect. It draws attention back to Great Britain, to a highly commercial, modernizing North Atlantic world, and to a shift- ing relation between an expansive metropolitan state and a loosely integrated group of American colonies. More to the point, this scholarship invites juxtaposi- tion of two separate topics, each of which alone has generated a rich and impressive literature, but that when brought together hold out the promise of a greatly revised interpretation of the coming of the American Revolution. First, the recent work fundamentally recastshow we think about the origins and development of Ameri- can nationalism. And second, it provides new insights into the character of popular political ideology on the eve of independence, suggesting why the natural rights liberalism associated with John Locke had broader emotional appeal during this period than did classical republicanism or civic humanism. Reappraisal of the construction of an American identity within the British Empire depends heavily on the work of recent English historians. As noted earlier, those are the men and women who revised much of Namier's scholarship, and although few of them have expressed keen interest in the colonies, their publications depict 3 One should note as well that Andrews was fully aware of the need to integrate social and cultural history into the larger narratives of British imperial development; see Charles Mclean Andrews, "On the Writing of Colo- nial History," Wtlliam and Mary Quarterly, 1 (Jan. 1944), 27-48. For a valuable discussion of Andrews's contri- bution to the field, see Richard R. Johnson, "Charles Mclean Andrews and the Invention of American Colonial History," ibid., 43 (Oct. 1986), 519-41. 4 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New Haven, 1992); Linda Colley, "Radical Patriotism in Eighteenth-Century England;' in Patriotism: The Making andUnmaking ofBritisb NationalIdentity, ed. Ralph Samuel (3 vols., London, 1989), I, 169-87; Linda Colley, "Whose Nation? Class and National Consciousness," Past andPresent (Oxford) (no. 113, 1986), 97-117; Linda Colley, "The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty, and the British Nation, 1760-1820," Pastand Present (Oxford) (no. 102, 1984), 94-129. John Brewer, The Sinews 01 Power: war, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 (New York, 1989); John Brewer, "The Eighteenth-Century British State: Contexts and Issues," in An Imperial State at war: Britain /rom 1689-1815, ed. Lawrence Stone (London, 1994), 52-71. Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the Revolution 15 a metropolitan culture and society that is quite unlike the traditional early modern world that American historians have long taken for granted. Until very recently, in fact, it was still possible for someone writing about the American Revolution simply to ignore the English side of the story. After all, as one respected historian announced with assurance, eighteenth-century England remained a "traditional, conventional, and conservative" society in which "a static order stood in the way of change,"! Generalizations of this sort are no longer tenable. An early hint of the changing interpretive climate appeared in a 1984 review of studies of eighteenth-century England in which Lawrence Stone called attention to an "astonishing surge of his- torical research."6 Georgian Britain had suddenly become a hot topic. Even scholars who took the lead in toppling the older historiography seemed amazed by the sheer quantity of exciting new work. In his A Polite and Commercial People (1989), for example, Paul Langford announced that he and others in the field had discovered a "transformation, social, cultural, religious, economic, which occurred between the 1720s and the 1780s [that] was nothing, if not spectacular,"? And a few years later in 1995, Kathleen Wilson declared, "Recent studies of popular politics, class relations, crime and the law have done nothing less than revolutionize the ways in which we view and interpret the expression and exercise of power in eighteenth- century English society'? Some revisionist claims have stood up better than others. However "spectacular" or "revolutionary" the new interpretations may have been, we still regard the eigh- teenth century as the period in which Parliament achieved undisputed constitu- tional sovereignty-the Glorious Revolution really did make a difference-and post- Namierite historians certainly do not seriously contest the ability of a landed oligarchy to maintain political dominance. Nevertheless, the interpretive shift is substantial. Whereas we once concentrated on elite political life, on the activities of unstable factions in court and Parliament, we now read of the development and maturation of an impressive fiscal-military state. No doubt, a good many fox- hunting country gentlemen will survive. The monarch will surely remain a key political figure. But those characters must now share the historical stage with an articulate and powerful middle class. Instead of tracing the genealogies of the mem- bers of parliament, English historians examine topics such as the establishment of ) Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (New York, 1982), 14, 21. Parochial claims continue to appear in the general literature in the face of frequent and persuasive calls for a larger, more comparative North Atlantic perspective. Some of the more cogent appeals are Bernard Bailyn and Philip D. Morgan, eds., Strangers within the Realm: Cultural Margins ofthe First British Empire (Chapel Hill, 1991); ].